Hudson v. Wells Fargo & Company
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-08296
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Hudson v. Wells Fargo, Judge Gilliam directed Hudson to confirm whether he would abandon amendment and seek dismissal with prejudice for an appeal.
Kurt L. Hudson and the defendants, including Wells Fargo & Company. The order required Hudson to choose between amending his complaint and seeking dismissal with prejudice to pursue an appeal.
What happened
In Hudson v. Wells Fargo & Company, the court had dismissed Kurt L. Hudson’s complaint but allowed him to file an amended complaint by August 12, 2022. Hudson did not file an amended complaint and instead appealed.
The court explained that the earlier dismissal was not a final order appealable as of right because it allowed amendment. It also explained that a plaintiff who chooses to appeal instead of amending may have the case dismissed with prejudice, meaning the case cannot be refiled.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. directed Hudson to file a statement of two pages or less by August 29, 2022, confirming that he was declining to amend and seeking dismissal with prejudice to permit an immediate appeal. This order did not itself state that the action was dismissed.
The detailed version
- Hudson v. Wells Fargo & Company · No. 4:21-cv-08296
- Haywood Gilliam
- Aug. 15, 2022
Background On July 13, 2022, the court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss Hudson’s complaint and gave him until August 12, 2022, to file an amended complaint. Hudson did not file an amended complaint. Instead, he filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Court’s analysis The court stated that its earlier order dismissing the complaint while allowing amendment was not a final order ending the litigation and therefore was not appealable as of right. Relying on Ninth Circuit precedent, the court explained that when a plaintiff chooses to appeal rather than amend the complaint, the district court should dismiss the action with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). A dismissal with prejudice bars refiling the dismissed claims.
Order and effect The court directed Hudson to confirm, in a statement of two pages or less due August 29, 2022, that he was declining the opportunity to amend and instead wanted the action dismissed with prejudice so he could pursue an immediate appeal. The order did not itself dismiss the action; it stated that the court would do so if Hudson confirmed that choice.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.